Document rX8oYqD0Zvrz06Zjkmme0DMa

1 Gaffey Study. The Zack-Gaffey wasn't In a Referee Journal, 2 but was in an EPA and Veteran1 s Administration Symposium. 3 Q Doctor, you*re saying that there is no excess 4 of coronary heart -- you said in this court that there is 5 no excess of coronary heart disease in these exposed employ 6 that they have the same kind of heart disease, have no connection with exposure at all? 7 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Haven't you? 10 A Yes, sir* II Q So you are hiding the fact that these exposed 12 employees have this excess rate, aren't you, sir? 13 A It's not excess -- 14 Q You're not saying that it has anything to do IS with their exposure? 16 A That's right. 17 Q You're sayingthat it has to do with their 18 lifestyle? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Just like you're saying that everybody in this 21 Valley has this problem because of their lifestyle? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Miss Strauss is suggesting inthisstatement 24 that yourexposed employees have gothigherdisease rate 1 because of their exposure, is she not? 2 A That's what the question implies. 3 Q Yes. And you don't agree with that? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q And you haven't -- and you've enver stated -- 6 you've always stated in public, "Well, that's because of 7 their lifestyle, it's got nothing to do- with their exposure. 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q So you are not warning the workers that exposure 10 to dioxin may cause them to have heart disease, are you, 11 A It would be improper to warn them. 12 Q Well, then what she is saying is that you didn't 13 do anything to warn these employees. She's saying these 14 employees have got excess heart disease because of their 15 exposure to dioxin? 16 A No, she isn't. 17 Q She's saying -- sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q You just got through -- 20 A I said that's what the sentence -- 21 Q -- reading, Dr. Roush, that that's what she is 22 saying. 23 A That's what the sentence is saying. 24 Q That's what I just got through asking you. 1 A That isn'twhat she says* 2 Q I'm sorry? 3 A She doesn't say that. 4 Q Isn't this her document? 5 A Yes, sir. But these are questions for the 6 Nitro lawsuit. 7 Q These are things that she put on this paper, is 8 it not, Doctor? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q She said these things in this document, didn't 11 she, sir? 12 A Yes, she did. 13 Q But, Doctor, you don't agree with what she has 14 said in this document, do you, sir? 15 A No, sir, 16 Q And you have not been telling your employees 17 that they have this risk, do you, sir? 18 A They don't have arisk. 19 Q Doctor,,she is saying in this document that they 20 do have a risk, isn't she? 21 A She says there seems to be an excess. 22 Q Yes. 23 A She didn't saythere is. 24 Q Now assume that that's true for the moment. All 1 right? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Assume that all theevidence that wehave 4 supports the thesis that what she says there is correct Yo 5 haven't publicized that in any way, have you, sir? 6 A Yes,sir. / 7 Q How have you -- who have you said, in what 8 document have you said that your exposed employees have a 9 higher heart disease rate? 10 A In the Referee Journal when we published the 11 Zaek-Suskind Study. And United Steel Workers doctor has 12 seen that, and he's an adviser to them. 13 Q Doctor, the UnitedSteel Workerspeople are the 14 ones that helped write the Moses-Selikoff Study. 15 A No. 16 Q They used the Zack-GaffeyMortality Study and 17 suggested that it was a rate similar to what was in the 18 Kanawha Valley. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Now you have not agreed, as I understand it, 21 that this coronary heart disease in the Kanawha Valley has g< 22 anything to do with these chemicals, or anything to do with 23 exposure to these chemical, or anything to do with exposure 24 to dioxin -- 1 A Yes, sir 2 Q -- is that right, sir? 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q Now you haven't said anywhere in the world, 5 anything other than what you're saying here, have you, sir? 6 A That's right* 7 0 All right Now that is not telling the world 8 what Miss Strauss says is the fact here, is it, sir? 9 A X don't believe thatshe's established that 10 fact* 11 Q Doctor, I don't want to go through that again* 12 You've already agreed that that is what she has said here 13 We're not saying that that's an established fact* It is 14 what she is saying as a fact* 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Whether you agree with it or not* 17 A Yes, sir* 18 Q The point that I'm trying to make, sir, is that 19 you haven't told your workers that there is a risk of 20 heart disease by being exposed to these chemicals, have you, 21 sir? 22 A NO, sir. 23 0 And you haven't made any attempt to compensate 24 them for this heart disease that they may be getting because 1 of their exposure to these chemicals, including dioxinj 2 isn't that correct? 3 A We compensate every person who has disabilities 4 from cardial vascular disease. 5 Q Doctor, how on earth do you do that? 6 A We have a disability program to take care of 7 people who are disabled. 8 Q Doctor, this is insurance that they pay as part 9 of their employment benefits that their union negotiated. 10 It's not got anything to do with compensation because of 11 their exposure. They would get that whether they had the he 12 attack at home, or connected with anything, or lifestyle. 13 That's got nothing to do with -compensating them for their 14 heart disease that they get because of dioxin. It's what 15 they earn. That's what they work for. That's what they 16 work with their sweat for, that insurance. That's part of 17 their pay, Doctor. Don't you understand that? You're not 18 giving them anything. They're earning that. Don't you 19 understand that, Doctor? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Now, the question ishave you doneanything to 22 compensate these employeesbecause of this heart disease 23 risk when they're exposed to chemicals? ,24 A I don't think there's a risk. 1 Q Doctor, assume that there is a risk as Miss 2 Strauss said there is, 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q Let's not go through thatagain* 5 A All right* 6 Q 1 have asked youto assume this* 7 A All right* 8 Q Now have you done anything to compensate them? 9 A No, sir* 10 Q The next question, Doctor, do you agree that 11 PAB and dioxin acting together make matters worse? 12 A No, sir* 13 Q You don't agreewith that? 14 A Well, we just talked about it yesterday* It IS says it doesn't* As a matter of fact -- 16 Q You and Mr. Heineman talked about that* And 17 the clear statement in your -- that we went through earlier, 18 Dr. Roush, if you'll recall, was that these people who have 19 bladder cancer get more of it if they're exposed to dioxin* 20 Don't you recall that in the Zack-Gaffey Study? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q You don't recall that? 23 A Yes, sir, I recall. But, no, sir, I don't think 24 that's what we agreed 1 Q You don't agree that the Zack-Gaffey Study 2 showed that they had a higher rate o bladder cancer when 3 they were exposed than the people who were unexposed? 4 A Yes, sir, Zack-Gaffey did. Yes, sir. 5 Q Doctor, hold that in your mind -- 6 A Right. 7 Q -- that Zack-Gaffey showed that. 8 A Right. 9 Q All right. Now that shows that dioxin and PAB 10 working together can cause more bladder cancer than PAB 11 alone, doesn't it? 12 A No, sir* 13 Q Doctor, didn't you just say that Zack-Gaffey 14 Study showed that? Am I not hearing the words that you're 15 saying? Didn't you just say that, Doctor? 16 A X said in that study they showed an excess of 17 bladder cancer, that's right* 18 Q Now, Doctor, that study shows that the ones that 19 were exposed to dioxin and PAB have more bladder cancer 20 than those that are not exposed to dioxin; correct? 21 A No, sir, I don't know that. 22 Q isn't that what thestudy showed. Doctor? 23 A No, sir* 24 Q Do you have an exhibit in front of you, Doctor? 1 A No, sir 2 M R HEINEMAN: Page 582? 3 MR* CARRs Page 586, I think is the proper one* 4 Q (By Mr. Carr) Is it not, Doctor? 5 MR. HEXNEMANs Bottom of page 582. 6 THE WITNESS! Table 9? 7 MR. CARRs 582? Table 9. Not 582. 8 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, in each instance there is 9 a high rate of bladder cancer, is there not, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And'according to Zack-Gaffey it's 809 percent 12 higher than expected for the people exposed to dioxin, is it 13 not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Doctor, doesn't that indicate that there is a 16 connection between dioxin and bladder cancer? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q It doesn 't indicate that? 19 A NO, sir. 20 Q Doctor, the group of people at the Monsanto 21 Plant that we've established all have some exposure to 22 dioxin, don't they, sir? 23 A Theoretically, yes. 24 Q Well, not just theoretically. We know, in fact, 1 that they have some exposure to dioxin 2 A NO, sir. 3 Q You don't know that? 4 A No, sir. Absolutelynot. 5 Q Didn't you just agree to that, Doctor? 6 A Pardon? 7 Q Didn't you agree -- haven't you agreed to that 8 a half a dozen times? 9 A Theoretically each time. 10 Q It's not theory. Doctor. The chemical is there. 11 The department takes one whole block of the Nitro Plant* 12 The railroad, where it's carried right through to the other 13 end of the plant. There's a building at the one end of the 14 plant that was used to create the stuff, and package the 15 stuff. There's buildings all over the plant. You can't 16 go in that plant at Nitro without being next to someplace 17 where they have done something with 2,4,5-T, or TCP* isn't 18 that correct? They've excavated -- as late as 1983, Doctor, 19 the SPA required you to excavate soil because it was dioxin 20 contaminated. Many years after you quit doing it. After 21 you quit making the stuff. 22 A No, sir, I don't think that's correct. 23 Q You don't think that's right? 24 A No, sir. 1 Q YOu don't recall excavating the soil along the 2 south fence in 1983? You don't recall paving over areas of 3 your plant to prevent people from being exposed to the 4 dioxin? You don't recall the wipe samples being -- the 5 dioxin being found years later, many years later in that 6 plant? You don't recall any of those things. Doctor? 7 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 8 Q You do recall those things? 9 A Yes* Yes, sir* 10 Q Now, Doctor, they quit making the dioxin, the 11 2,4,5-T in 1969 and 1970 in that building, other people 12 have worked in that building since that time on other 13 processes, haven't they, sir? In all those buildings* 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Those buildings have been abandoned? 16 A Yes. 17 They haven't been used since '69? 18 A I think there's one that's still in use. 19 Yes, Doctor. And the people that work in that 20 building are exposed to dioxin everyday, aren't they? Your 21 wipe samples showed that, didn't it, sir? 22 A That doesn't mean they've been exposed everyday* 23 Doctor, the dioxin was there, and they're workin 24 there, they're exposed to it, aren't they? 1 A I don't know* It hasn't been measured* 2 G Doctor, because you haven't measured it doesn't 3 mean -- you know it's there, you know they're working 4 there, you know that they're there everyday, eight hours a 5 day, you know that they're exposed to dioxin by virtue of 6 working in that plant, don't you, sir? 7 A I don't know that. 8 G Why don't you know that, Doctor? 9 A Because you can't measure it* 10 Q Doctor, are you saying they -- they did measure 11 it, though, with their wipe samples* 12 A IN a few places, yes, sir* 13 Q Sir? 14 A In a few places* IS G Well, it's there, then* They did measure it, 16 didn't they? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Whoever was in those two places was exposed to 19 it, weren't they, sir? 20 A I don't know. 21 0 You don't know that? 22 A NO, sir. 23 Q Why don't you know that, Doctor? 24 A Because they were taking it up in the rafters ] and places like that to see. if there's any evidence of it 2 in the plant. 3 Q What were they getting off the rafters, Doctor? 4 Dust, weren't they? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And, Doctor, doesdust -- have you ever seen a 7 train come along -- along next to the plant? Have you ever 8 seen the dust come out of rafters when the building shakes? 9 Have you ever seen that, Doctor? Have you never been in 10 the plant when there's vibrations going on? 11 A The trains don't runpassedthere* 12 Q A truck runs passed there. Wind. A storm 13 comes along, the building shakes. Haven't you seen things 14 come from the rafters, from those overhead beams, Doctor? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q You haven't seenthat? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Haven't you been -- 21 A No, sir. 22 Q You know it happens. You know that dust comes 23 down from those rafters, you know that, don't you, Doctor? 24 A NO, I don't. 1 Q Well, Doctor, does your scientific mind tell 2 you that there are occasions since 1969 when somebody in 3 that building that dust, that dioxin on those rafters could 4 have fallen on those people? 5 A Yes, sir, 6 Q Your mind will permit that deduction, won't it, 7 sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Then you do know that it does occur, don't you, 10 sir? II A I don't know that. 12 Q Why don't you know it, Doctor? 13 A Because Ican't measure it. 14 Q Doctor, they measured - - w e went through that IS once. They measured, they found it in the rafters in that 16 building. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q They took wipe samples, they found it there 19 in the dust. 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Had been there foryears andyears. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q So they did measure it, didn't they, sir? 24 A YES, sir. Q So you do know itr then, don't you, sir? A MO, sir* Q I thoughtyou said youdidn't know itbecause you couldn't measure it. A Yes, sir* Q Isn't that why you said youdidn't know it?? A I said I don't know that the man has been getting that exposure. Q No, Doctor, you get different reasons at differed times. You said once that you don't know that it ever gets there. We demonstrated it logically that dust would fall on them from time to time. We demonstrated that, and you agreed with that, that logically you would agree. Then you said you don't know it because it's not been measured. But it has been measured. A Not in men* Not bypersonalexposure. Q Doctor, the dust has been measured in those buildings, by you, and by the EPA, was it not, sir? A Yes, sir. Q And the dust was found to contain dioxin, didn't] it, sir? A Yes, sir. Q Doctor, thosepeople in those buildings were exposed to that dioxin, weren't they, sir? 72 ] A I Don't know 2 G Why is it you don't know,Doctor? 3 A Because I don't know whether that exposure has 4 taken place -- if you can't measure it, you can't say it's 5 there. 6 G Doctor, we went through -- we're going in 7 circles. You agreed that it was measured. 8 A I'm talking about in the air. 9 Q Doctor, when it gets off of the rafters, it 10 settles. It's heavier than air, isn't it, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And it will settle on anybody that's there. 13 It will settle on the floor, it will settle on the workmen, 14 won't it, sir? 15 A If it does settle out, yes, sir. 16 Q So you don't have to measure it in the air to 17 know they're exposed to it, do you, sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Doctor, do you now agree that men working in 20 that plant, not making 2,4,5-T, are exposed to dioxin? 21 A Possibly some of them, yes, sir. 22 Q All right. Now they suggest here, Miss Strauss 23 suggests that these two matters acting together would make 24 matters worse. Do you agree with that? 1 A No, sir. 2 0 All right. I won't get anymore arguments with 3 you. But that's what she suggests, isn't it, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now she also 3 ays, the next question, since it 6 causes multiple tumor types in experimental animals at very 7 low levels of exposure, why do you feel that it may not also 8 cause cancer in the exposed Nitro workers. Do you agree 9 with her suggestion, first of all, that it causes cancer in 10 experimental animals? 11 A Yes,sir. 12 Q And tumors, by the way, when you say tumor, you 13 mean either a malignant or benign tumor, don't you, sir? 14 That's a broad word, includes both kinds? 15 A No, we're talking about malignant tumors. 16 Q Yes. But the word, just using the word tumor by 17 itself, doesn't tell youwhether it's benign or malignant, 18 does it? 19 A That's right. 20 Q Tumor is the word thatencompasses both benign 21 malignant and benign growth? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q But she is talking inthisinstance,.because 24 of the context, you know that she's talking about cancer. I A Yes, sir. 2 Q And, Doctor, do you agree, her nextsuggestion 3 that it may also cause cancer in exposed Nitro workers? 4 X can answer it for you, Doctor, you don't agree to that, 5 do you? 6 A That's right. 7 Q And we've already got into 13, so we can skip 8 over that. How about Number 14? Do you agree that you 9 should worry -- first of all, synergistic action between 10 chemicals means that one acts upon the other to make some-* 11 thing occur that would not have occurred without the two 12 chemicals being together. 13 A That isn't what ismeant. But that's part of-14 it. 15 Q Well, the sum of the two is greater than each 16 one by itself. You v/ill get more than two. One and one -- 17 two chemicals put together will give you more than two. 18 A Yes, sir. That's what itmeans. 19 Q That's what it means. Now what about that? 20 You didn't worry about that, did you, Doctor? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q You did worry about it? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Do you agree that there is -- that you did I permit exposure to people that had 2*4,5-?, hydrgen sulfide 2 I suppose that is, and PAB? 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q And you didn't worry about it, or did you worry about it? 5 6 A We monitored for them to see what was in the affect* 7 8 Q what did you find? 9 A We didn't find any evidence of affect* 10 Q Well, then you didn't worry about it anymore? 11 A Now if I find out that there's no synergistic 12 action, I don1 1 . 13 Q You don't believe that dioxin and PAB work 14 together, you're back on that thesis again, to promote 15 cancer? 16 A This study here that you asked me to read said 17 it doesn't. 18 Q I'm sorry? 19 A This document you just gave me to read says it 20 doesn't. 21 Q Doctor, all that document is, as you well,know, 22 is a study of people exposed to dioxin* 23 A Mo, sir. 24 Q That document created by Zack-Gaffey put in* 1 made no distinction between people that were exposed to 2 the dioxin, TCP and the people that were exposed to just 3 2,4,5-T, and Table 11 is fine evidence of that, isn't it, 4 sir? 5 A Yes. But that also took out many other causes 6 of death too 7 Q Well, Doctor, that's not the question that I'm 8 asking you* This Zack-Gaffey Study is no a study of people 9 who were exposed to TCDD, is it, sir? Even though it 10 purports to be that* 11 A Yes, sir, it is* 12 Q They have mixed the groups, have they not, 13 Doctor? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Then you cannot compare the groups if you mix 16 them, can you, sir? 17 A Yes, sir* 18 Q Hov; can you compare it, Doctor? 19 A By comparing the way they did. 20 Q Well, Doctor, you see here they put four people 21 that they knew were exposed to dioxin, they put it in the 22 unexposed group. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 'G Doctor, we don't need to go through that again, 1 do we? Well, Doctor, I won't 90 through it again. I'm 2 going to pass to the next question here. Cl2 has got 3 nothing to do with the case So we can pass by that. What 4 about 16, do you agree that TCDD has been reported to cause 5 toxic effects upon multiple organ systems? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And do you agree that it would potentiate the 8 toxic effects due to other toxic agents in the plant 9 environment? 10 A There's no evidence that it does. 11 Q Then you don't agree? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You have to have absolutely evidence that it 14 does before you would agree to this statement; is that right 15 sir? 16 A There's noevidence that they do. 17 tt Excuse me. Do you agree with it or not, Doctor? 18 A I don't agree that itpotentiates. 19 Q All right* That's what X expected. Now the 20 next question, "What role do Monsanto wastes play in the 21 increased cancer rate in the Kanawha Valley? 22 A None. 23 Q Just like Monsanto plays no role in the increase 24 heart disease rate? 1 A Yes, sir 2 Q How much are the -- how much is the cancer rate 3 increased in Kanawha Valley over the rest of the population? 4 A I don't know what total cancer is, 1 don't 5 have that data. '6 Q Have there been studies done? 7 A Yes, sir* 8 Q And you do know that they do have higher cancer 9 rates? 10 A Yes. 11 0 If I asked you all those questions about this 12 increased cancer rate, the same questions I asked you about 13 the increased cardio vascular rate, would your answer be 14 that it's the lifestyle that's causing the cancer rates 15 to be higher? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And if I asked you the questions whether or not 18 you investigated the lifestyle of these people in the 19 Kanawha Valley to find out whether or not they're doing 20 something that could cause them to be afflicted with more 21 cancer, would your answers be the same, that you haven't 22 done any such study? 23 A We did a study on our population, of all of our 24 lung cancer was smokers, all but one* 1 Q All that proves* Doctor* is the point that I 1! 2 trying to prove* that this causes lung cancer in people who 3 would not otherwise get it* even though they smoke. That's 4 the point* Doctor* of the study. Aren't you aware of that* 5 sir? 6 A Yes* sir. 7 Q Doctor* what it means is that absent dioxin* 8 a smoker might not get cancer. Absent exposure to the 9 chemicals put out by Monsanto* and by others* the smoker 10 might be able to smoke* if he weren't exposed to the dioxin* 11 If he weren't exposed to the chemicals. Do you see that* 12 Doctor* as the affect of these studies? Did the fact that 13 there are 10 lung cancer deaths in smokers, now you know you 14 got a lot more smokers, there is no distinction between 15 exposed and unexposed as far as smokers is concerned* is 16 there* sir? You don't know any difference between whether 17 or not people smoke or don't smoke* and being exposed or 18 not exposed? 19 A We didn't do it like we did on those 10. 20 u All right. Doctor* what you do know* this 21 population of smokers* if they're not exposed to dioxin* 22 you only get three cases of lung cancer, but if they are 23 exposed to dioxin you get ten in a smaller denominator, in 24 a smaller group. 1 A NOf air 2 Q Doctor, I'm not going to go through that again* 3 4 But we did establish those numbers this morning, did we 5 not? The ten and the three. Remember that, Doctor? 6 A ires, sir. 7 Q Just this morning. .8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q We did establish the denominator was greater 10 in the unexposed group than it was in the exposed group* 11 Remember that, Doctor? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Just thismorning? 14 A Yes, sir. IS Q We did establish the denominator was greater . 16 in the unexposed group than it was in the exposed group* 17 Remember that, Doctor? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And we established that there are 10 lung cancer 20 in the smaller group is a higher rate than three lung cancer 21 in the larger group. 22 A I'm sorry, I don1 tilaccept that* I 'm not sure 23 we've got the data -- I have to look at the data before I 24 can say that. 1 Q Doctor# we established this morning/ and I'm not 2 going to establish it again, that the exposed group was 3 smaller than the unexposed group, didn't we, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q And the smaller exposed group had 10 lung cancers 6 didn't it, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. X think that's right. I'd like to 8 look at it. 9 Q The larger the unexposed -- the unexposed group 10 was larger, we established that, didn't we. Doctor? 11 A Yes, sir; 12 Q There was only three lung cancers in that larger 13 group, we established that this morning, didn't we, Doctor? 14 A I have to look at the data. That doesn't help 15 me, I have to look at the reports. 16 Q Doctor, this is the report. This table is taken 17 from the report. 18 A Yes, sir. 19 0 You have the report right here infront of you. 20 A- Yes, sir. 21 Q Three lung cancers in the unexposed group to 22 TCDD; correct, Doctor? It might help you to look at Table 23 11 there. Doctor, have you got Table 11? You want me to 24 find it for you? 1 A I've got it, sir* 2 Q Okay. Look at Table 11 and eliminate the four 3 with the underline, and count the lung cancers after 4 eliminating those four* 5 A X have to see what it does to the study. 6 . q Doctor, I'm not asking you to do that* I'm 7 not attempting for you to analyse the study* I'm attempting 8 to establish a point that we established this morning* I'm 9 not asking for a critique of the study* 10 A Yes, sir. 11 0 Now, according to Table 11, there areonly three 12 lung cancers in the unexposed group deaths,aren't there? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And now are we agreed that according to Table 15 11 and according to Table 10, Table 10 is the exposed group 16 A Yes, sir* 17 Q -- we add those four to the ten, to Table 10? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And we've got ten and three, haven' t we, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 0 Now, is it possible, Doctor, that -- well. 22 haven't we now established, Doctor, that it's the dioxin 23 has a greater affect on having lung cancer than the 24 smoking? 1 A No, sir, 2 Q Doctor, we've got only threedeaths in a larger 3 group, haven't we, sir? 4 A res, sir# 5 Q Much larger group? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q And we'v got ten deaths in a much smaller 8 group, haven't we, sir? 9 A Yes,sir* 10 Q Doesn't thathave just alittle bit of 11 convincing you, Doctor, that a person could, perhaps, smoke 12 and the list wouldn't be near as great -- we could get away 13 with smoking* I smoked for 20 years, Doctor, and 1 finally 14 quit. My wife still smokes, 15 A Yes, sir* 16 Q Isn't it possible that if we weren't exposed 17 to dioxin and other chemicals that can do the same thing, 18 that would promote cancer, isn't it possible that smokers 19 who smoke and have a much lower risk of having -- it 20 wouldn't be eliminated, I'm not suggesting that it would* 21 But isn't it possible, based upon just this study alone, 22 just this one -- 23 A NO, sir* 24 Q -- it's not possible? 1 Q Doctor, what other reason could there be for 2 increased cancer rate in the Kanawha Valley, except the 3 chemicals to which those people are exposed? 4 A That they smoke* 5 Q Doctor, we've already gone through that* People 6 all over the country smoke* 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Is there any evidence that the people in the 9 Kanawha Valley are more -- smoke more than the people in 10 Belleville? 11 A I don't know that. 12 Q Then you have absolutely no evidence to suggest 13 that it's because -- that the higher rate is because they 14 smoke? 15 A Yes, sir* 16 Q What do you have, sir? 17 A Because when people go in the hospital and they 18 operate them for lung cancer, the ones who get lung cancer 19 are the ones who are heavy smokers* 20 Q There's no doubt about that, Doctor* I'm not 21 quarreling with that* That's got nothing to do with the 22 question that I'm asking you. 23 A I think it does* 24 Q Doctor, what I'm asking you is there any reason 1 for the smokers in Belleville to have a less risk of lung 2 cancer than the smokers in Kanawha Valley? 3 A Yes, sir* They don't smoke as much* 4 Q NO/ Doctor. You don't know that at all. 5 A No. 1 don't have a fact/ no# sir. 6 Q You don't have the slightest idea that that's 7 the case* Do you, Doctor? 8 A Medical evidence would say it is* 9 The only medical evidence you've got is that 10 they got lung cancer. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q So what we've got in KAnawha Valley is smoker# 13 lung cancer/ plus dioxin. What we have in Belleville is 14 smoker and less lung cancer. 15 A Yes# sir. 16 Q The only difference is the dioxin# or the other 17 chemicals. I don't want to blame it all on dioxin. The 18 other chemicals in the Kanawha Valley. That's the only 19 difference in the hypothetical that I've given youf and you 20 don't know of any other difference/ do you. Doctor? 21 A NO/ sir. 22 0 Doctor/ 1 promised you at the lunch hour that I 23 would give you a copy of the most recent New Zealand Study 24 Would you mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit. 1 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1523 was marked for identification by the court reporter,) 2 3 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, is the American 4 Journal of Epidemiology a recognized, authoritative 5 6 medical publication? A It's a Referee Journal, yes, sir. 7 Q You recognize Plaintiff's Exhibit 1523 as being 8 9 an article published in the American Journal of Epidemio 10 logy in 1985? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 MR. CARRj I offer that exhibit into evidence, 13 if it please the Court. 14 MR. HEINEMAN: No foundation laid for it, 15 your Honor. I have to object on that basis. It's hearsay. 16 There's no foundation for it. 17 Q (By Mr. Carr) Well, let me ask him. Do you 18 accept this article published in the American Journal of 19 Epidemiology as an authoritative publication? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Why wouldn't you, Doctor? 22 A It doesn't mean -- these are their findings. 23 That doesn't mean it's authoritative. 24 Q Doctor, you don't understand the meaning of the 1 word -- this article -- this is a peer reviewed article, 2 is it not? 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q And other scientists in the community read 5 this and accept it as peer reviewed. They may not agree 6 with its conclusions, mind you. Nobody is suggesting 7 that. But it is in a recognized authoritative publication* 8 A Yes, sir. Absolutely. 9 0 Yes. And it is peer review!, isn't it, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 MR. CARRt I offer it again, your Honor, 12 MR. HEINEMAN: Same objection, your Honor. 13 Hearsay, no foundation* 14 THE COURT: Overruled* Foundation is adequate. 15 Admitted over objection. 16 Q y Mr* Carr) Doctor, is this the first time 17 you've seen this particular article? 18 A Yes, sir* 19 Q I won't cross examine you at length about it. 20 But it deals with cancer in aggricultural occupations. 21 You can see that from the summary at the very first -- at 22 the top of it, can you not? 23 A And forestry. 24 Q I'm sorry. And forestry, yes. 1 A But they're saying -- yOure right. It's 2 aggricultural. 3 Q I 1 sorry? 4 A You're right, it's aggricultural. 5 Q Doctor, the last sentence of it, and I do not 6 want to suggest to you that the authors of this article 7 say that exposure to herbicides is the only possible cause 8 of this increase. They pose three possible causes in the 9 aggr icultural workers. And I don't want to get into 10 detail with it, because it's a lengthy article and you 11 haven't read it. But just directing your attention to the 12 very last sentence in that abstract, it says, does it not, 13 sir, "Mortality from malignant lymphoma and multiple 14 myeloma increased significantly during the period 1955-197 i> 15 A Yes, sir. 16, Q All right. Doctor, I 'd like to direct your 17 attention to the Monsanto Exhibit 55, the Missouri 18 Division of Health Study. It was what Mr. Heineman 19 questioned you about. 20 MB. HSINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. May 21 counsel approach the bench? 22 THE COUKTi Sure. 23 (The following proceedings were had at the 24 bench, out of the hearing of the jury:) 1 MR HEINEMAN: Could I be mistaken, or does It 2 look like there's a portion of that abstract that's 3 missing? 4 MR, CARR: You're mistaken, because these are 5 key words. That's all that is, 6 MR. HEINEMAN: Is that what that is? 7 MR. CARR: Sure, that's the way it's listed 8 under. 9 THE COURT: You mean for reference, to find it? 10 MR. CARR: Right. 11 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. So that doesn't -- 12 there's nothing missing in here? 13 MR. CARR: To my knowledge, this is the way 14 I received it, Counsel. 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Not from me. 16 MR. CARR: No. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Okay. 18 (The following proceedings were had in the 19 presence and hearing of the jury:) 20 MR. CARR: Do you have the Monsanto Exhibit 55, 21 or do you have it, Counsel? Does the Clerk have it or do 22 you have it? 23 MR. HEINEMAN: We have it right here, if I'm 24 not mistaken. Careful, that first page you're about to 1 lose 2 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, handing you Defendant's 3 Exhibit 55. Do you recall Mr. Heineman questioned you 4 about that? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q First of all, to start with, you are aware of 7 the fact, while Mr. Heineman didn't bring it out, you're 8 aware of the fact that this was a study based upon ques 9 tionnaires sent to people who live in the contaminated 10 areas around St. Louis. You know that, don|t you? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 0 And they divided into two groups, the people 13 they call high risk, the ones that answered that they 14 were most exposed to dioxin, and low risk grqups, the ones 15 that would have the lesser exposure to dioxin. 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q You know that, don't you? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q So it was not a study of comparing people who 20 were exposed to dioxin to people who were not exposed to 21 dioxin, was it, sir? 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. We've 23 read into evidence what the definitions of high and low 24 risk exposure were right from the paper. Is he Implying 1 that we were suggesting that we let that out? '2' MR. CARR; V7hat I'm trying to make clear, Mr# 3 Heineman, is that this study, just like the Zack-Gaffey 4 Study, just like the Moses-Selikof Study, just like the 5 Zack-Suskind Study is not a study that compares unexposed 6 people to exposed people# 7 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 8 MR. CARR: It is the same sort of thing that 9 compares people' with higher exposure to people with lower 10 exposure. 11 THE COURT; Objection is overruled. You may 12 continue. 13 Q (By Mr# Carr) Doctor, to direct your attention 14 to the Page 49, first of all, if you would, called 15 "Appendix A." Do you see that, sir. 16, A Yes, sir. 17 Q Do you see there something that's called 18 "Distribution of Porphyrins and Total Porphyrins in 19 Chronic Hepatic Porphyria?" 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And, Doctor, there is a ratio set out there 22 that's for Copro/Uro ratio that they call normal, that 23 this study conducted by St. Louis University Hospital, 24 St. Joseph Hospital, the Centers for Disease Control, and I Missouri Division of Health, They put a Table there for 2 a normal Copro/Uro ratio, did they not, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q What is the normal ratio according to this 5 document? 6 A Two to six, 7 Q Doctor, are you aware of the fact that people 8 of Sturgeon, many of the people of Sturgeon have Copro-Uro 9 ratios that are outside this normal ratio two to six? 10 A No, sir, 11 Q Are you familiar at all with Dr, Carnow's 12 testimony, long involved testimony, as to the significance 13 of Copro-Uro ratios? 14 A No, sirIS Q Nobody has told you that Monsanto has taken 16 the position that the Copro/Uro ratio, there is no such 17 thing as a normal one, and that the two to six ratio 18 testified to by Dr, Carnow is not the normal ratio? 19 A No, sir, but I don't believe in that ratio. 20 Q Well, I didn't ask you if you believed in it -- 21 A I understand. 22 Q -- Dr. Roush, I know what your answer would be 23 in advance, if X asked you to believe it. All I'm asking 24 you is do you see that that is the ratio used by the Missouri Division of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, St. Joseph Hospital, Kirkwood and St. Louis University Hospital, for urinary analysis of the porphyrins. A It's certainly cited. Q And they use the word "Normal two to six," don't they, sir? A Yes, sir Q And they're talking about trying to find chronic hepatic porphyria, aren't they, sir? A Yes, sir. Q And, Doctor, they also show here that Coproporphyrinuria is when the ratio is greater than six, don't they, sir? A Yes, sir. Q And type A of the Chronic Hepatic Porphyria is when the ratio is greater than oner correct, sir? A Yes, sir. Q Type B is where it's less than one? A Yes, sir. 0 And both Latent and Overt Porphyria Cutania Tarda also has ratios of less than one, do they not, sir? A Yes, sir. Q An inverted ratio that is. A Yes, sir 1 Q Now, Doctor, I'd like for you now to turn to 2 Roman Number IV of this study, and to the bottom of the 3 page. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q They point out in this study that, "Finally 6 public health policy in situations such as this environ 7 mental contamination with TCDD must continue to be focused S on the prevention of any potential health effects even if 9 such effects were not demonstrated in a small pilot study. 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q It does say that, doesn't it? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q It goes on to say that "Health effects could 14 occur with a latency period exceeding the time from ini 15 exposure to examination in this study." 16 A Ye?, sir. 17 Q "For this reason, all appropriate efforts need 18 to be made to prevent human exposure. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Do you agree with- that, Doctor? 21 A No, sir. They don't mean it either. 22 Q They're saying it there, but you.'re saying they 23 don't mean it? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Doctor, these people from St, Louis University, 2 from the Centers for Disease Control, and the Missouri 3 Division of Health, they're responsible people, aren't 4 they, sir? 5 A Yes, sir, 6 Q Huh? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 0 And they're not given to make irresponsible and 9 rash statements, are they, sir? 10 A Not rash at that time, 11 Q Sir? 12 A Not rash at that time. 13 Q All right. And they meant what they said, 14 didn't they, sir? 15 A In 1983, yes, sir. 16 Q Well, you said they didn't mean it. 17 A They meant what they said in 1983. 18 Q Yeah. And they meant in 1983 that all 19 appropriate efforts need to be made to prevent human 20 exposure, didn't they, sir? 21 A Yes,'sir. 22 Q But you at Monsanto don'tagree with that, 23 do you, sir? Never have agreed with it, have you? 24 A No. Q And for that reason, because you don't agree 1 with that statement, you at Monsanto have done nothing 2 with regard to the situation at Sturgeon to prevent human 3 exposure, have you, 3 ir? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Now, Doctor, if you'll turn to page 14, if 6 you would, of this study. 7 A Table 2 there. 8 Q Do you see that, sir? 9 A Yes, sir, 10 Q And Table 2 talks about"Relative Carcinogenic 11 Potencies Among Selected Chemicals Evaluated by the 12 Carcinogen Assessment Group as Suspect Human Carcinogens." 13 Do you see that, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And do you see TCDD listed as one of those? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And they list Aflatoxin B^, Benzo(a)Pyrene, 18 Beryllium, Carbon Tetrachloride, DDT, Bpichlorhydrin, 19 Tehylene Dibromide, PCBs, TCDD and Vinyl Chloride, do 20 PENG1D CO.. BAYONNE, N .J . 0 T 0 0 1 FORM IL 2* B 21 they not, sir? 22 A Yes, sir, 23 Q Do you see that? They list all of those, do 24 they not, sir? 97 1 A Yes, sir.t 2 Q Now, sir, turn your eyes towards the last 3 column, where.lt says "Order of Magnitude." 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Which of those carcinogens, which of those 6 chemicals selected as being suspect human carcinogens, 7 which of those has the highest number in the order of 8 magnitude? 9 A TCDD. 10 Q Yes, indeed. But you don't agree with that 11 either, do you? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q You do agree with that? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q That TCDD does have the highest order of 16 magnitude among all these carcinogens? 17 A By comparison of those, yes, sir. 18 0 Do you agree that these others are carcinogens? 19 A .No, sir. Not in man. 20 Q None of these are carcinogens in man? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 0 By yes, sir, you mean some of them are and 23 some of them aren't? 24 A Some of them are and some of them are not \ 1 Q Which ones are and which ones are not? 2 A Aflatoxin is what's found in peanut butter, 3 and the levels found in peanut butter -- 4 Q I'm just asking you, Doctor, to answer my 5 question. 6 A Right. 7 Q Is it or is it not a carcinogen in humans? 8 A Aflatoxin is a liver carcinogen in man. Benzo 9 (a)Pyrene is known to cause skin cancer. 10 Q All right. n A Whether it causes lung cancer isn't clear. 12 Beryllium has never been shown to be a human carcinogen. 13 Carbon Tetrachloride has never been shown to be a human 14 carcinogen. DDT has never been shown to be a human 15 carcinogen. I don't know what Epichlorhydrin is. Ethylen 16 Dibromide has not been shown to be a human carcinogen. 17 P(3 >has not been shown to be a human carcinogen, and . 18 Vinyl Chloride is clearly a human carcinogen. 19 Q It is clearly? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And, Doctor, of all those that are -- that you 22 say are carcinogens, the TCDD is the one with the greatest 23 test order of magnitude? 24 A Yes, sir 1 Q Doctor, if you would turn to page 16 in the 2 second paragraph there, in the middle of that paragraph* 3 That paragraph talks about this being a pilot study to 4 assess the current health effects in the highly exposed 5 group, doesn't it, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q And it also says it is too early since first 8 exposures at these sites to adequately assess long-term 9 risks for cancer or other effects by direct study of this 10 exposed population* You see that, don't you, sir? II A Yes, sir 12 Q That's because the latency periods for some i 13 cancer is as much as 20 and 30 and 40 years; isn't that 14 correct, sir? 15 A No, sir 16 0 There are not latency periods for some cancer 17 of 20, 30, 40 years? 18 A The longest maybe 20 years, but not the short 19 est, for any one of the carcinogens* 20 Q Doctor, my question was that there are some 21 cancers that have a latency period of 40 years, isn't 22 there, sir? 23 A As long as 40 years? 24 Q As long as 40 years* 1 A Yes,sir 2 Q And they can have a latency period, I suppose, 3 that's as short as -- 4 A Five years. ' 5 Q -- five years. And the first exposure at 6 Times Beach was 197 ;-- 7 A '71* 8 Q '75. 9 A *71, X think. 10 Q So we've got 14 years there, haven't we, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And roost cancers have a longer latency period 13 than that, haven't they, sir? 14 A Not mean. 15 Q Sir? 16 A Not the mean of latency. The mean of latency 17 is something less than 15 years* 18 Q How much less than 15 years? 19 A Not much. It's something right around 15 years 20 Q Well, what you're saying is that from 15 years 21 on you can possibly see some cancers; is that what you're 22 saying? 23 A If you see them -- you can have them as long 24 as 40, but if you have a population there will be cancers 1 before 40 years in all of them. I don't know of any which 2 you find as late as 40 years, without having cancers 3 occurring early as well. I'm saying the mean for all of 4 them is 15 to 20 years. 5 Q I won't quarrel with that. That goes according 6 to various human acceptability, with variances again in 7 human beings. 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Some people are more apt to fight off the 10 cancer, their systems, they have an immune system that's n functioning properly, or functioning differently than some 12 others. 13 A i I don't know why. 14 Q Sir? 15 A I don't know why. 16 Q We know for some reason that there is a varianci 17 isn't there, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, do you also see the statement there on 20 page -- I'm sorry, turn to Page 35, if you would. You see 21 there is on Table 2 a trend of increased -- 22 A Pardon me, sir? I'm sorry? 23 Q Page 35. 24 A That's not a table. Are you talking about a I table? 2 Q Doctor, turn to Page 35 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q It says "As presented in Table 2." 5 A I'm sorry* I'm sorry. 6 Q n-- there appeared to be a trend of increased 7 urinary tract problems among the high risk cohort as 8 reported from the medical history." Do you see that, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And they repeat the same thing, if you turn to 11 Page 43, don't they, sir? 12 A Page 43? 13 Q . Yes. The 6th line from the top, where it says 14 "Of greater interest is the apparent trend indicative IS of urinary tract abnormalities among the high risk 16 individuals." Do you see that, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And on the next page they talk about the 19 individuals that had the high liver on percussion, and 20 they're concerned about that because of the extensive 21 animal and high-dose human data suggesting hepatotoxic 22 effects of TCDD exposure. Do you see that, sir? Do you , 23 see that, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q And again that has to do with the porphyrins 2 and the importance of watching and measuring those 3 porphyrins; isn't that correct, sir? 4 A No, sir* 5 Q Doctor, when they talk about a chronic hepatic 6 problem, what are they talking about? 7 A They're talking about something that causes 8 pathology in the liver. 9 Q And, Doctor, isn't that caused -- isn't 10 porphyria a chronic hepatic disease? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q Would you,turn to Page 49 again, Doctor. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Do you see that Table there? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q What does it say? It says "Chronic Hepatic L 17 Porphyria." 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And isn't that a form of liver disease? 22 A No, sir. 23 0 What is it, Doctor? 24 A It's an enzymatic disease. It's genetic. This